Cheating in chess

[NickFaulks]

It is unfortunate that a lengthy discussion of David Parr's career has found its way into this thread.

[Roger de Coverly]

Here's another threat.

https://gizmodo.com/we-need-to-talk-abo ... wtab-en-gb

This is the announcement of smart Ray-Bans.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rt-glasses

Given FIDE's over the top approach to the use of pens, watches and Sim cards, how long before we see players wearing glasses forced to remove them during play?

[Peter Ackley]

Given FIDE's over the top approach to the use of pens, watches and Sim cards, how long before we see players wearing glasses forced to remove them during play?

I suspect there would be some serious (legal?) challenges here. I can live without a SIM card and happily use a biro provided (strangely not wearing a watch is more annoying than some people think - I even sleep in mine) however I haven't spent 35 years wearing glasses for fun - I'm heavily short-sighted. There isn't a different solution (in my case - laser surgery would have no benefit). It's not like I'm going to take them off and suddenly think "damn... all those years and it turns out I could see properly".

I mean where does this end? Metal detector finds a false hip - arbiter produces a scalpel, just to check???

[NickFaulks]

Given FIDE's over the top approach to the use of pens, watches and Sim cards

I concur with the general sentiment here but, to be honest, if I made my living by playing chess I would be quite unhappy if my opponent were wearing these smart glasses.

[Roger de Coverly]

if I made my living by playing chess I would be quite unhappy if my opponent were wearing these smart glasses.

Rather than extend the crude approach of banning all watches and pens, haven't FIDE got to be a bit more sophisticated? I doubt it feasible to ban all wearers of glasses from wearing them and still hold viable events.

[LawrenceCooper]

https://www.chess.com/news/view/teenage ... ne-in-sock

[Roger de Coverly]

https://www.chess.com/news/view/teenage ... ne-in-sock

British arbiters are usually hot on the rule that you don't have a phone on your person. Dutch arbiters perhaps less so. Having a phone in your sock might be a fashion fad anongst Dutch teenagers, but needs to be removed at tournaments. That didn't seem to have been made as clear as perhaps it should.

It seems the Regan screening that "With your rating, you aren't good enough to find those moves" is still alive and well.

[Paul McKeown]

https://www.chess.com/news/view/teenage ... ne-in-sock

British arbiters are usually hot on the rule that you don't have a phone on your person. Dutch arbiters perhaps less so. Having a phone in your sock might be a fashion fad anongst Dutch teenagers, but needs to be removed at tournaments. That didn't seem to have been made as clear as perhaps it should.

You are talking complete nonsense. I was an arbiter at the 2023 edition of the HZ schaaktoernooi and I can state with complete confidence that there was no tolerance whatsoever to a player having a mobile phone on their person. One thing I recall clearly was the rigour with which the Flemish Chief Arbiter, IA Bart de Vogelaere insisted on scanning players to deter potential engine abusers.

There is no evidence here at all to suggest that a British tournament is more likely to discover an engine abuser with their standard scanning protocols than a Dutch tournament.

Indeed, my experience of tournaments in England and in other countries is opposite to that which you have suggested here. English tournaments tend to allow a phone to be switched off on the table or in a box or bag under the table, or something similar. Players and arbiters from many countries would tend to view that laxity with a degree of horror.

That is not the case at HZ, where a similar protocol of dealing with the perceived need in modern society to have a mobile telephone at all times is instituted.

4. Aan de spelers wordt gevraagd om geen telefoon, smartwatch... mee te brengen naar de speelzaal.
Mocht dit voor een speler onhaalbaar zijn, dan gelden volgende regels:

4.1 Wie speelt aan een live bord dient verplicht zijn telefoon, smartwatch... uitgeschakeld in bewaring te geven aan de toernooitafel voor de duur van de partij.

4.2 Wie speelt aan een niet live bord dient zijn telefoon, smartwatch... uitgeschakeld op te bergen in een jas of tas (die tijdens de partij niet wordt gebruikt) of uitgeschakeld naast het bord op de speeltafel leggen.

4.3 Het is voor elke speler verboden een telefoon, smartwatch... bij zich te dragen. De toernooiorganisatie maakt gebruik van detectors voor elektronische apparaten om dit verbod te handhaven, conform artikel 11.3 van het FIDE reglement.

4.4 De toernooiorganisatie is niet aansprakelijk voor verlies, beschadiging, diefstal... van elektronische apparatuur die wordt meegebracht naar de speelzaal.

4.5 Sancties:
Indien vastgesteld wordt dat een elektronisch toestel niet uitgeschakeld is, dan wordt - bij een eerste overtreding - de resterende bedenktijd van de betrokken speler gehalveerd, met een maximale vermindering van 10 minuten. Bij een tweede overtreding verliest de betrokken speler zijn partij.
Indien vastgesteld wordt dat een speler een telefoon, smartwatch... bij zich draagt, dan verliest deze speler zijn partij en wordt een onderzoek gestart dat kan leiden tot uitsluiting van het toernooi en de start van een procedure bij de FIDE, conform de FIDE anti-cheating regulations.

The only treatment that differs from the standard treatment is that in the HZ tournament, if a player's device, placed according to tournament protocol, is found not to be switched off, then instead of an instant loss for a first offence, half of the player's time is removed.

The penalty, however, for having a phone on one's person is clearly stated: immediate loss of the game, and a FIDE anti-cheating investigation opened.

[Roger de Coverly]

You are talking complete nonsense.

Explain then how this case arose, complete with a referral to the witchfinding software.

Did the player conceal a phone about his person and use it to suggest moves in his games?

[Paul McKeown]

I won't respond to any nonsense addressed in such lurid terms as "witchfinding software".

To refer to your second sentence, yes, the player was discovered coming from the toilets with a phone concealed in their sock and refused to allow the arbiters to view the contents of the phone. He was then escorted from the premises, his games were not rated and an anti-cheating report was made.

The arbiters had already been tipped off by complaints of frequent trips to the toilet in previous rounds, combined with the ridiculous manner in which he, a local 1500 player, with no previous history of giant-killing, had suddenly discovered the skill of smashing up titled players in mind-boggling fashion.

Now, you would perhaps like to try to justify your prejudicial insinuation that Dutch tournaments are lax in allowing a player to have a phone on their person, when the facts of this case are opposed. The player was removed from the tournament for that exact offence!

[Roger de Coverly]

Now, you would perhaps like to try to justify your prejudicial insinuation that Dutch tournaments are lax in allowing a player to have a phone on their person, when the facts of this case are opposed.

I took it from the chess.com report

The Respondent stated in his oral defense before the Chief Arbiter that carrying a phone inside a sock was entirely natural at this age among youngsters. However, he refused the Chief Arbiter’s request to turn on the phone and allow it to be inspected.

Whether the phone can be inspected only affects the degree of sanction. The game is already lost when the phone is detected. Why did the player think it was acceptable to carry a phone in his sock during a chess tournament? If someone notices, he loses the game at the very least.

On a wider issue, all the detected cases in recent years seem to have been the same method, namely consulting a device during the game. Nothing more sophisticated seems to have come to light.

In a way the Dutch case is unusual for its high profile. In British tournaments, you hear rumours and these can be confirmed by results software setting all pairings to zero. Names are rarely if ever directly disclosed.

[NickFaulks]

Nothing more sophisticated seems to have come to light.

There are of course two possible reasons for that.

[Paul McKeown]

Now, you would perhaps like to try to justify your prejudicial insinuation that Dutch tournaments are lax in allowing a player to have a phone on their person, when the facts of this case are opposed.

I took it from the chess.com report

The Respondent stated in his oral defense before the Chief Arbiter that carrying a phone inside a sock was entirely natural at this age among youngsters. However, he refused the Chief Arbiter’s request to turn on the phone and allow it to be inspected.

[...]Why did the player think it was acceptable to carry a phone in his sock during a chess tournament?

Are you really claiming to believe that there is a fashion amongst the Dutch youth to carry mobile phones in their socks? Ridiculous.

As to why he carried it in his sock, that is easy. He never believed for a moment that is was acceptable. He did so in order to abuse the chess engine on the device to give him better moves to play than the ones he could think up with his own undertrained mental resources.

[Matt Mackenzie]

There's no *proof* he hid the phone in his sock to cheat, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty overwhelming isn't it.

[Paul McKeown]

That is not the conclusion of the FIDE Ethics & Disciplinary Commission.

The report is flawed by poor and inconsistent spelling and translation [e.g. "Blom" becomes "Bloom", "Tuchtcomissie" becomes "Truchtcomissie", "KNSB" ("Koninklijke Nederlandse Schaakbond") translated to RDCF (presumably "Royal Dutch Chess Federation" but not stated and "bond" should be "union" not "federation"), but Tuchtcomissie ("Disciplinary Commission") left untranslated, etc.]

The report also leaves unchallenged the Respondent's statement that his FIDE Rating was based on insufficient games and thus unrepresentative. He had, namely, also an established national rating in the 1500s.

Furthermore, a few salient but well-known details have been omitted, presumably as they were not presented at any stage into evidence.

Nevertheless, the EDC report is clear enough and lays out enough information for all clearly to see the guilt of the Respondent.

In particular the report finds no credibility in any statement of an innocent accident:

12.1.6.1.The EDC Chamber finds that the Respondent’s claim that there is no evidence he used his phone to cheat is not sufficient defense to the allegations. The facts that the Respondent concealed his phone, took it with him to the toilet, hid it in his socks, initially refused to be scanned, and only agreed to be scanned after learning that refusal would result in expulsion from the tournament and further action are established by the Chief Arbiter’s report as well as the witness statements of other arbiters and officials. Moreover, the Respondent himself has confirmed these facts on several occasions in his defense, presented as an expression of remorse. If the Respondent had truly not engaged in cheating, he could have simply complied with the arbiters’ request to have his phone examined.

If this had been a jury trial in an English court, I am sure the verdict would have been the same. A jury would not allow its credibility to be so blatantly tested in the face of such clear evidence of culpability before, during and after discovery.

Edit: corrected spelling of Koninklijke